Re: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-08.txt> (Diameter Agent Overload and the Peer Overload Report) to Proposed Standard

Misha Zaytsev <misha.zaytsev.rus@gmail.com> Tue, 17 January 2017 21:24 UTC

Return-Path: <misha.zaytsev.rus@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54C391294BF; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:24:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b1DSdV2akUnn; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:24:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22e.google.com (mail-lf0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8668B1295B3; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:24:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id k86so118554073lfi.0; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:24:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vsfPH/C+4iydCVPRGSuVMM6afBPI1Xk/wAb7RfUW/NA=; b=svNKAp+lT8WTc6DoqTuVpf9Z3O2FX4HuVjvZ8UPn0U+MJGXUCc0vI69flyWbcRqasG JZVW2zmPOe5DURhNorYk19Pm8dBwSXH8+Nqp6zpN2Xgvs9v4iZiQujKvqJN0za77RM85 BzIIal3mmcd5HV39PH6aI87AM82vBxj8PTSbGvpz/Ix2rScilmVyVN248Fc14l03cXw5 ATQ1VVAzrhrLPPnYiN5Pq4qlXtsvdd+ctg0tTqd2lyXzfoR7E2FKUkzUOiuRSw3aJSGA 5BFEUdNBgHtkNyYeP16VhJJ+c2wACD8WXJhRE3xmmH/kv1jvYD66gfVN7neAqpZbUgop xxWA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vsfPH/C+4iydCVPRGSuVMM6afBPI1Xk/wAb7RfUW/NA=; b=l9YDILGeeuBQCJRHZ6rkGW57Pw+qkinsQtU+IMFXpQf7+RRZsy7CUaCwh1Yangq8Uj RvEkRsunQRP2siHA6akBf6Pd5qZ9T655f1DsWRdtFVc5d8/ci1KXS926TDT343iuVLfb i4gBNJQJnXn2y7cNsj+p8Bv5QbVG3f176unzky4cjDo2qYL1UP5O8kyO/l3UCcPHmUj0 ugcp/9qwDd55nz7cBi7ZEZnLcDXO+sbfXt/JSFFZmvaKSj0516FyRZh4B7VDnvuSCz31 ACIXqpG2rtiCP4NBN+GlM64aA/dlvKIok8uxl5QPr3EIa/uTOf1J3h2oAnBe/un1o9jp DjRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXL1AMCZjVXHXJhO3ip8ByBcChzpneVlXMTug49L/4Cp2tSoqtiHmzdJkYgA78tBVM9HvYVU0cQ0sMR8Og==
X-Received: by 10.25.208.20 with SMTP id h20mr4382606lfg.150.1484688271595; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:24:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.228.12 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:24:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <c5efbe4b018646489bb21b75a81e6836@CSRRDU1EXM025.corp.csra.com>
References: <148397251720.24904.6589163339967252298.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABPQr26jB94UCE+PcMh29PC+_=zxuTac4j-JMcuBKFYvWYPjDA@mail.gmail.com> <c5efbe4b018646489bb21b75a81e6836@CSRRDU1EXM025.corp.csra.com>
From: Misha Zaytsev <misha.zaytsev.rus@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:24:31 +0300
Message-ID: <CABPQr26Z3DhLnO6N_-OX5ZM3U9_+F1wh++BbJGxDfkDqjz-LpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-08.txt> (Diameter Agent Overload and the Peer Overload Report) to Proposed Standard
To: "Gunn, Janet P" <Janet.Gunn@csra.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114125c807df3a054650ed5f
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3fUnJYamlNEAT-6QZ_DKm183jF8>
Cc: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>, "dime-chairs@ietf.org" <dime-chairs@ietf.org>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:24:37 -0000

Hi Janet,

OK, I will not argue :)
-1 comment for Steve to answer.

/Misha

2017-01-18 0:16 GMT+03:00 Gunn, Janet P <Janet.Gunn@csra.com>om>:

> Point number 2-
>
>
>
> "As if the client were …" is correct (subjunctive for a "condition
> contrary to fact")
>
>
>
> "As if the client  was" … is grammatically INCORRECT.
>
>
>
> Janet
>
>
>
> *From:* DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Misha Zaytsev
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:24 PM
> *To:* ietf@ietf.org
> *Cc:* dime-chairs@ietf.org; dime@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dime-agent-
> overload@ietf.org; IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-08.txt>
> (Diameter Agent Overload and the Peer Overload Report) to Proposed Standard
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Here are my comments/questions to an agent overload draft.
>
> This the first part. Later on I will complete my review and send out the
> second portion of the comments.
>
>
>
> 1. section 1 (editorial) removed "is" before "feasible".
>
>
>
> In the base specification, the goal is to handle abatement of the
>
>    overload occurrence as close to the source of the Diameter traffic as
>
>    feasible.
>
>
>
> "scenaios" -> "scenarios"
>
>
>
> The Peer overload report type is
>
>    defined in a generic fashion so that it can also be used for other
>
>    Diameter overload *scenarios*.
>
>
>
> 2. section 3.1.1 (editorial) replaced "were"-> "was"
>
>
>
> In both of these cases, the occurrence of overload in the single
>
>    agent must by handled by the client in a similar fashion as if the
>
>    client *was* handling the overload of a directly connected server.
>
>
>
> 3. section 3.1.1 (question)
>
>
>
> An appropriate error response is sent back to the originator
>
>    of the request.
>
> Who sends "an appropriate" error response" in this case?
>
>
>
> 4. section 3.1.2 (editorial) changed "to"->"the"
>
>
>
> When the client has an active and a standby connection to the two
>
>    agents then an alternative strategy for responding to an overload
>
>    report from an agent is to change *the *standby connection to active and
>
>    route all traffic through the new active connection.
>
>
>
> 5. section 3.1.3 (editorial)
>
>
>
> An example of this type of deployment include*s* when there are Diameter
>
>    agents between administrative domains.
>
> 6. section 3.1.3
>
>
>
> There is no section 2.2. I guess section 3.1.2 was meant here, right?
>
>
>
> Handling of overload of one or both of agents a11 or a12 in this case
>
>    is equivalent to that discussed in section 2.2.
>
>
>
> 7. section 3.2.1
>
>
>
> It is not clear which usage scenario is meant here.
>
>
>
>    It is envisioned that abatement algorithms will be defined that will
>
>    support the option for Diameter Endpoints to send peer reports.  For
>
>    instance, it is envisioned that one usage scenario for the rate
>
>    algorithm, [I-D.ietf-dime-doic-rate-control], which is being worked
>
>    on by the DIME working group as this document is being written, will
>
>    involve abatement being done on a hop-by-hop basis.
>
>
>
> 8. section 4
>
>
>
> Why is throttling to be applied and not diversion (like in case of
> redundant agents)?
>
>
>
> In this scenario the reacting node should first handle the throttling of the
>
>    overloaded host or realm.
>
> "LOSS" Is it a new type defined in the scope of this draft?
>
>
>
> Note: The goal is to avoid traffic oscillations that might result
>
>       from throttling of messages for both the HOST/REALM overload
>
>       reports and the PEER overload reports.  This is especially a
>
>       concern if *both reports are of type LOSS*.
>
>
>
> 9. section 5.1.1
>
>
>
> Probably it is better to describe OC_PEER_REPORT feature in section 5.1?
>
> Otherwise, it is used as a well-known one while it is the first place
> where it is mentioned.
>
>
>
> Also I think it is better to add more specific in this draft related to
> peer report handling:
>
> - define Peer Report Reacting Node and Peer Report Reporting Node terms
> explicitly and use them through the draft and especially starting from
> section 5.1
>
> - add "Peer Report" prefix to all the described procedures
>
> Example: Capability Announcement -> Peer Report Capability Announcement
>
>
>
> 10. section 5.1.1/general
>
>
>
> "DiameterIdentity" and "Diameter identity"
>
> My proposal is to use one term through the spec.
>
>
>
> Under "DOIC node", an agent is meant here?
>
>
>
>  When an agent relays a request that includes a SourceID AVP in the
>
>    OC-Supported-Features AVP, a DOIC node that supports the
>
>    OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST remove the received SourceID AVP and
>
>    replace it with a SourceID AVP containing its own Diameter identity.
>
>
>
> My proposal is to use peer report reacting node here re-phrasing this
> statement below in the following way:
>
>
>
>  When relaying a request that includes a SourceID AVP in the
>
>    OC-Supported-Features AVP, a peer report reacting node MUST remove the received SourceID AVP and
>
>    replace it with a SourceID AVP containing its own DiameterIdentity.
>
> 11. section 5.1.2
>
>
>
> added the missed "to"
>
> changed "PEER_REPORT"-> "PEER"
>
>
>
> Note: The transaction state is used when the DOIC node is acting
>
>       as a peer-report reporting node and needs *to *send OC-OLR reports of
>
>       type *PEER *in answer messages.  The peer overload reports
>
>       are only included in answer messages being sent to peers that
>
>       support the OC_PEER_REPORT feature.
>
>
>
> "Diameter ID" term is not clarified anywhere.
>
> Re-phrased the appropriate statement a little bit, changed "Diameter
> ID"->"value"
>
> Also there are other places in the draft where "Diameter ID" term is used.
>
>
>
> The peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature if the received request
>
>    contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with the OC-Feature-Vector with
>
>    the OC_PEER_REPORT feature bit set and with a SourceID AVP with a
>
>    value that matches the DiameterIdentity of the peer from which
>
>    the request was received.
>
>
>
> Agent is meant under "reporting node" here?
>
>
>
> Should not SourceID AVP not just stripped from the relayed answer, but
> replaced with the SourceID AVP containing the DiameterIdentity of the agent
> supporting OC_PEER_REPORT feature?
>
>
>
> When an agent relays an answer message, a reporting node that
>
>    supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST strip any SourceID AVP from
>
>    the OC-Supported-Features AVP.
>
>
>
> Hard to follow what was wanted to say here:
>
> Corrected the statement, but this is just my best guess.
>
>
>
> The OC-Peer-Algo AVP MUST indicate the overload abatement
>
>    algorithm that the reporting node wants the reacting nodes to use
>
>    *when *the reporting node send*s* a peer overload report as a result of
>
>    becoming overloaded.
>
>
>
> Should not we add a separate if- statement for the case when the peer does
> not support OC_PEER_REPORT feature when sending an answer message?
>
>
>
> 12. section 5.1.1 and 5.1.2
>
>
>
> Probably it is more helpful to illustrate OC_PEER_REPORT feature CA using
> sequence diagrams like in the load info conveyance draft.
>
>
>
> 13. general.
>
>
>
> What about to use the writing for the same terms through the spec?
>
> Example1: "DOIC node" and "DOIC Node"
>
> Example2: "peer-report reporting node" and "peer report reporting node"
>
>
>
> 14. section 5.2.1.2, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 and general
>
>
>
> "peer-type OCS" and "peer report OCS" define the same term?
>
> Why not to use only one?
>
>
>
> Another example: "peer report" and "peer report-type" and "report of type
> PEER"
>
>
>
> 15. section 5.2.3
>
>
>
> Probably it is better to re-phrase this statement a little bit + corrected
> the misprints.
>
>
>
> If a *peer report* reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP of type peer and the
>
> SourceID matches the *DiameterIdentity *of the peer from which the *report*
>
> was received then the report was *generated *by the peer.
>
>
>
> Similar comment + corrected misprints for the next statement:
>
>
>
> If a peer report reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP of type peer and the
>
> SourceID does not match the *DiameterIdentity *of the peer from which the
>
> *report *was received then the reacting node MUST ignore the overload
>
> report.
>
>
>
> Also I think it is useful to use one wording for the same term:
>
> "Peer Report OLR", "OC-OLR AVP", "OLR"
>
> Let's use a generic one "peer report"?
>
>
>
> Just minor comment: "the existing..." and "a new overload condition" for
> all occurrences if my English is correct.
>
>
>
> 16. section 5.2.3
>
>
>
> How may it happen that peer report reacting node receives a peer report
> not from the peer that generated it?
>
> Peer reports can be sent only to peer report reacting node, right? And
> peer reports are not relayed, right?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> /Misha
>
>
>
>
>
> 2017-01-09 17:35 GMT+03:00 The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>rg>:
>
>
> The IESG has received a request from the Diameter Maintenance and
> Extensions WG (dime) to consider the following document:
> - 'Diameter Agent Overload and the Peer Overload Report'
>   <draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-08.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-01-23. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
>    This specification documents an extension to RFC 7683 (Diameter
>    Overload Indication Conveyance (DOIC)) base solution.  The extension
>    defines the Peer overload report type.  The initial use case for the
>    Peer report is the handling of occurrences of overload of a Diameter
>    agent.
>
> Requirements
>
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload/ballot/
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
>
> The document contains these normative downward references.
> See RFC 3967 for additional information:
>     draft-roach-dime-overload-ctrl: A Mechanism for Diameter Overload
> Control (None - )
> Note that some of these references may already be listed in the acceptable
> Downref Registry.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>
>
>
> This electronic message transmission contains information from CSRA that
> may be attorney-client privileged, proprietary or confidential. The
> information in this message is intended only for use by the individual(s)
> to whom it is addressed. If you believe you have received this message in
> error, please contact me immediately and be aware that any use, disclosure,
> copying or distribution of the contents of this message is strictly
> prohibited. NOTE: Regardless of content, this email shall not operate to
> bind CSRA to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit
> written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of
> email for such purpose.
>